Chullin 138

בששים ותני תנא מנה בן ארבעים סלעים אין והתנן חמת חדשה אף על פי שמקבלת רמונים טהורה

equivalent to the weight of sixty sela, as stated by Rav Dimi. The Gemara asks: But does a tanna teach that a maneh is of forty sela? The Gemara answers: Yes; and we learned in the Tosefta (Kelim, Bava Metzia 6:2): With regard to a new leather flask that is not yet completely sewn together, even though it can contain pomegranates, nevertheless, because it cannot contain liquids it is considered unfinished and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

תפרה ונקרעה שיעורה כמוציא רמונים רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר כפקעיות של שתי אחת מארבע במנה בן ארבעים סלעים

If one sewed the flask together and it tore, the measure of the tear that renders the flask no longer susceptible to impurity is a hole large enough to enable pomegranates to go out, as then it ceases to serve as a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The tear must be like the measure of balls of a warp, the weight of each of which is one-quarter of a maneh of forty sela. This tanna explicitly mentions a maneh of forty sela.

וכמה נותן לו כו׳ תנא לא שילבננו ויתננו לו אלא שילבננו כהן ויעמוד על חמש סלעים

§ The mishna states: And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One gives him the weight of five sela in Judea, which are ten sela in the Galilee, once laundered and not when sullied. The Sages taught: The mishna does not mean that one must launder the wool and then give it to the priest; rather, the meaning is that one must give him enough wool for the priest to launder it and it will amount to five sela.

כדי לעשות בגד קטן מנהני מילי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרא לעמד לשרת דבר שהוא ראוי לשירות מאי ניהו אבנט

The mishna states: The measure that must be given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The verse that follows the mention of the first sheared wool states: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons forever” (Deuteronomy 18:5). The term “to serve” indicates that the first sheared wool given to the priest must be a matter that is fitting for service in the Temple, i.e., an amount of wool sufficient to fashion one of the priestly garments. What is the garment in question? It is the belt, which is made from wool weighing five sela.

אימא מעיל תפשת מרובה לא תפשת תפשת מועט תפשת

The Gemara asks: Is the garment in question necessarily the belt? Say that it is the robe, which is fashioned from a far greater amount of wool. The Gemara answers: This inference is based on the principle that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a little, you grasped something. Since a belt meets the condition of “to serve,” as it is one of the priestly vestments, one cannot say that the obligation is any greater than the amount of wool needed to fashion a belt.

ואימא כיפה של צמר דתניא כיפה של צמר היתה מונחת בראש כהן גדול ועליה ציץ נתון לקיים מה שנאמר ושמת אתו על פתיל תכלת

But say that the garment in question is the cap of wool that the High Priest wears, which is smaller than the belt. As it is taught in a baraita: A cap of wool was placed on the High Priest’s head, and the frontplate was placed upon it, to fulfill that which is stated with regard to the frontplate: “And you shall put it on a thread of sky blue, and it shall be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be” (Exodus 28:37). The term “thread of sky blue” is referring to the cap of sky-blue wool.

אמר קרא הוא ובניו דבר השוה לאהרן ולבניו

The Gemara answers that the verse states: “To stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons” (Deuteronomy 18:5), which indicates that the verse is referring to a matter, i.e., a garment, that is equal for Aaron and for his sons. The wool given to the priest must be of sufficient size for fashioning a garment worn both by the High Priest and by common priests, whereas the woolen cap is worn only by the High Priest.

אבנט נמי לא שוי הניחא למאן דאמר אבנטו של כהן גדול לא זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט שפיר

The Gemara objects: But the belt is also not equal for all priests. The Gemara elaborates: This works out well according to the one who said that the linen belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur is not the same as the belt of an ordinary priest. According to this opinion, both the belt of common priests and the belt worn by the High Priest during the rest of the year were fashioned from a mixture of wool and linen. This belt is therefore equal for all priests, and it works out well.

אלא למאן דאמר זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר שם אבנט בעולם

But according to the one who said that the linen belt worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur is the same as the belt of an ordinary priest, what can be said? According to this opinion, the belt fashioned from wool and linen is worn only by the High Priest during the rest of the year. The Gemara answers: Although the belts are different, the term belt in general applies to all priests, whereas no type of cap is worn by common priests.

לא הספיק ליתנו וכו׳ איתמר גזז ומכר ראשונה רב חסדא אמר חייב רבי נתן בר הושעיא אמר פטור

§ The mishna states: If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, he is exempt from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool. The mishna further teaches that one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool. It was stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to one who owned five sheep and he sheared and sold the first sheep before shearing the second, and in this manner sold each sheep after shearing it. When he finished shearing he owned the requisite five fleeces, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, but he no longer owned the sheep. Rav Ḥisda says: He is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool; and Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says: He is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.

רב חסדא אמר חייב דהא גזז רבי נתן בר הושעיא אמר פטור בעידנא דקא מלא שיעורא בעינן צאנך וליכא

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Rav Ḥisda says that he is obligated, as he sheared five sheep that he owned at the time of shearing, and therefore the term: “Your flock” (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies to this case. Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says that he is exempt, as at the time that the measure of five fleeces is completed, we require the term “your flock” to apply, since the obligation takes effect at that stage, and in this case it does not apply.

תנן הלוקח גז צאנו של גוי פטור מראשית הגז הא צאנו לגזוז חייב אמאי כל חד וחד בתר גיזה נפקא לה מרשותיה

The Gemara raises a challenge: We learned in the mishna (135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool, as he purchased only the fleece but not the sheep. One can infer from here that if he purchased the gentile’s sheep themselves in order to shear them and then return them to the gentile, he is obligated, because the sheep belonged to him at the time of shearing. But why is he obligated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya? Each and every one of the sheep, after the shearing is completed, leaves his possession, and when he has sheared five sheep, the term “your flock” no longer applies to them.

תרגמא רב חסדא אליבא דרבי נתן בר הושעיא כגון שהקנן לו כל שלשים יום

Rav Ḥisda interpreted the mishna according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya: The mishna is referring to a case where the gentile transferred ownership to him for the entire period of thirty days during which the Jew sheared the sheep. Therefore, he retained ownership after he completed shearing, and the term “your flock” does apply to the sheep at the time when the obligation of the first sheared wool took effect.

הלוקח גז צאנו של חבירו כו׳ מאן תנא דהיכא דאיכא שיורא גבי מוכר בתר מוכר אזלינן

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the wool, then he is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that in a case where there is residual wool in the possession of the seller, we follow the seller in determining who is obligated in the mitzva of first sheared wool?

אמר רב חסדא רבי יהודה היא דתנן המוכר קלחי אילן בתוך שדהו נותן פאה לכל אחד ואחד

Rav Ḥisda said: The tanna who taught the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 3:5): With regard to one who sells a few fruit-bearing tree stalks within his field, without selling the field itself, for the buyer to uproot them and plant them in his own field, the buyer gives separate pe’a for each and every one of the trees. The field does not combine the trees into a single unit for pe’a, as the land is not owned by the buyer.

אמר רבי יהודה אימתי בזמן שלא שייר בעל השדה אבל שייר בעל השדה נותן פאה על הכל

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is it the buyer’s obligation to give pe’a? It is when the owner of the field did not leave any of the trees in his possession. But if the owner of the field left some of the trees in his possession, the owner gives pe’a for all the trees. Just as in the case of pe’a, if the seller left trees for himself then the obligation applies to him, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, if the seller left some of the wool for himself, the obligation applies to him.

אמר ליה רבא והא מר הוא דאמר והוא שהתחיל בעל השדה לקצור

Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that the owner gives pe’a for all the trees: This is the halakha only when the owner of the field began to harvest the fruit before he sold the trees, as the obligation to give pe’a had already applied to him. By contrast, with regard to the first sheared wool, the obligation came into effect only after he sold his sheep.

וכי תימא הכי נמי והוא שהתחיל לגזוז בשלמא התם ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם כתיב מעידנא דאתחיל לקצור מיחייב בכולה שדה אלא הכא מעידנא דאתחיל למיגז לא מיחייב בכוליה עדריה

And if you would say that so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, this halakha that the seller gives the first sheared wool applies only if the seller began to shear the sheep before he sold them, that explanation is difficult. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, there, with regard to pe’a, it is written: “And when you reap the harvest of your land” (Leviticus 19:9), which indicates that from the time that he began to harvest he is obligated in the mitzva of pe’a with regard to the entire field. But here, in the case of the first sheared wool, he is not obligated with regard to the entire flock from the time that he began to shear his sheep. Therefore, even if he began shearing before he sold the sheep, the obligation to give the first sheared wool should not apply to the seller.

אלא אמר רבא האי תנא הוא דתנן אמר לו מכור לי בני מעיה של פרה זו והיה בהן מתנות נותנן לכהן ואין מנכה לו מן הדמים לקח ממנו במשקל נותנן לכהן ומנכה לו מן הדמים

Rather, Rava said: It is this tanna who taught the mishna, as we learned in a different mishna (132a): If one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of this cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included in them, i.e., the maw, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and he may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the buyer must give the gifts to a priest and he may deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays the butcher. If the priestly gifts have not yet been separated from the animal, the price by weight includes the price of these gifts. But since the priests had the right to their gifts from the time of the slaughter, the buyer does not need to pay for them and may therefore deduct their value from his payment.

אלמא מתנות דכהן לא מזבין איניש הכא נמי מתנות דכהן לא מזבין איניש הלכך שייר המוכר מוכר חייב דאמר ליה לוקח מתנה דכהן גבך היא לא שייר לוקח חייב דאמר ליה מוכר מתנה דכהן לא זבני לך

Evidently, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest, and therefore they are not included in the sale of the innards unless they were sold by weight. Here too, with regard to the first sheared wool, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest. Therefore, if the seller left wool in his possession, the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool from the remaining wool for that which he sold, as the buyer can say to the seller: The gift of the priest is in your possession, since you did not sell me everything. If the seller did not leave any wool in his possession, the buyer is obligated to give the first sheared wool and he does not deduct its value from the price, as the seller can say to him: I did not sell the gift of the priest to you, i.e., there was no obligation to give the gifts to a priest when I sold the wool to you, and therefore the buyer is required to give the gifts to the priest.

הדרן עלך ראשית הגז

מתני׳ שילוח הקן נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית בחולין אבל לא במוקדשין חומר בכסוי הדם משילוח הקן שכסוי הדם נוהג בחיה ובעוף במזומן ובשאין מזומן ושילוח הקן אינו נוהג אלא בעוף ואינו נוהג אלא בשאינו מזומן

MISHNA: The mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It applies to non-sacred birds, but it does not apply to sacrificial birds. There are more stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, as the covering of the blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals and birds that are readily available in one’s home, and to animals and birds that are not readily available and are hunted in the wild; and the sending of the mother bird from the nest applies only to birds, and applies only to birds that are not readily available.

איזהו שאינו מזומן כגון אווזין ותרנגולים שקננו בפרדס אבל אם קננו בבית וכן יוני הרדסיאות פטור משילוח עוף טמא פטור מלשלח עוף טמא רובץ על ביצי עוף טהור וטהור רובץ על ביצי עוף טמא פטור מלשלח קורא זכר רבי אליעזר מחייב וחכמים פוטרין

What are considered birds that are not readily available? They are any birds, even domesticated, that may fly away at any time, such as geese or chickens that nested in the orchard [pardes]. But if geese or chickens nested in the house, and likewise, with regard to domesticated pigeons [yonei hardisei’ot], one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. With regard to the nest of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird. In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird. With regard to a male pheasant [korei], which is known to sit upon the eggs like the female of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obligated to send it away, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from sending it away.

גמ׳ רבי אבין ורבי מיישא חד אמר כל היכא דתנן בארץ ובחוצה לארץ שלא לצורך לבד מראשית הגז לאפוקי מדרבי אלעאי דאמר ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ

GEMARA: The mishna contains several phrases related to the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest that also appear in the first mishna of several other chapters of this tractate. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha made the following statements. One of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is stated needlessly, as those mitzvot are not related to land, such that there is no need to teach that they apply outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. This is true except for the mitzva of the first shearing of wool, which one must give to a priest. It was necessary to teach that that mitzva applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who said: The first shearing is in effect only in Eretz Yisrael.

וחד אמר כל היכא דתנן בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית שלא לצורך לבד מאותו ואת בנו סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובענינא דקדשים כתיב בזמן דאיכא קדשים ננהוג בזמן דליכא קדשים לא ננהוג קא משמע לן

And the other one said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, it is stated needlessly, as these mitzvot are requirements of the object itself, and there is no need to teach that they apply even after the destruction of the Temple. This is true except for the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day. It was necessary to teach that this mitzva applies even after the destruction of the Temple, because it might enter your mind to say: Since this prohibition is written in a passage in the Torah discussing the matter of sacrificial animals (see Leviticus, chapter 22), at a time when there are sacrificial animals, i.e., when the Temple is standing, we will abide by it, but at a time when there are no sacrificial animals, after the destruction of the Temple, we will not abide by it. Therefore, that mishna teaches us that this is not so.

ותרוייהו אמרי כל היכא דתנן בחולין ובמוקדשים לצורך לבד מגיד הנשה פשיטא משום דאיקדש פקע ליה איסור גיד הנשה מיניה

And both of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both to non-sacred animals and to sacrificial animals, it is stated necessarily. This is the case except for the mishna discussing the sciatic nerve, as it is obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals as well. Can it enter one’s mind to say that because it was consecrated, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is abrogated from the animal?

ולאו אוקימנא בולדות קדשים

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we establish that the mishna there (89b) is referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Without the mishna, one might have thought that since the offspring was already prohibited as a sacrificial animal before its sciatic nerve was even formed, the prohibition with regard to the latter does not take effect where the former prohibition already exists. If so, it was in fact necessary to teach this halakha.

ומאי טעמא אוקימנא לאו משום דקשיא לן לא ליתני מעיקרא נמי לא תקשי לך איידי דתנא לצורך תנא נמי שלא לצורך

The Gemara responds: But what is the reason we interpreted that mishna as referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Is it not due to the fact that the question: Let the mishna not teach that the prohibition applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is difficult for us? It is in response to this question that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha stated that even from the outset, this should not pose a difficulty for you. Rather, since the phrase: Applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is taught necessarily with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring, it is also taught needlessly with regard to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, to parallel the formula of the other mishna.

בחולין אבל לא במוקדשים אמאי לא דאמר קרא שלח תשלח את האם במי שאתה מצווה לשלחו יצא זה שאי אתה מצווה לשלחו אלא להביאו לידי גזבר

§ The mishna states that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest applies to non-sacred birds, but not to sacrificial birds. The Gemara asks: Why does this mitzva not apply to sacrificial birds? The Gemara responds: As the verse states: “You shall send the mother” (Deuteronomy 22:7). The verse refers only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, i.e., a non-sacred bird; that excludes this sacrificial bird, which you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to the custody of the Temple treasurer.

אמר רבינא הלכך עוף טהור שהרג את הנפש פטור משלוח מאי טעמא דאמר קרא שלח תשלח את האם במי שאתה מצווה לשלחו יצא זה שאי אתה מצווה לשלחו אלא להביאו לבית דין היכי דמי אי דגמר דיניה

Ravina says: Therefore, with regard to a kosher bird that killed a person and must now be executed, one is exempt from sending it away. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: “You shall send the mother.” The verse is referring only to a bird that you are commanded to send away, which excludes this bird that you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to court. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case, i.e., how is this bird that killed a person now resting on its eggs? If this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued,